When is a volunteer not a volunteer? When they’re a worker with regard to employment status? It may not be as straightforward as you think.
The Court of Appeal will be considering this later this year, when it reviews the case of Coastal Rescue Officer, Mr Groom.
Mr Groom volunteered for the Coastal Rescue Service (CRS) for many years. The case ended up at the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) because when Mr Groom was subject to disciplinary activity and asked to be accompanied by a trade union representative to the disciplinary hearing, he was turned down on the grounds that the right would only apply if he was a worker.
In law, there’s no such thing as volunteer status, which isn’t always appreciated. What matters isn’t the label, but the legal status behind it. Depending on the exact details of the individual arrangement involved, there’s a possibility that someone described as a ‘volunteer’ could, in fact, be held to be a worker, or an employee for employment status purposes. Both types of status carry significant employee rights and employer responsibilities, such as minimum wage, and entitlement to paid holidays.
One of the defining features of a worker is working under a contract. In this particular case, the CRS argued that there was no contract. Its handbook for volunteers said that the relationship was a ‘voluntary two-way commitment where no contract of employment exists’.
The EAT, however, looked at the reality underlying all this. It noted that Mr Groom worked under a Volunteer Agreement, which set out minimum levels of attendance at training and incidents, and expectations to uphold the CRS’ professional reputation. What made the critical difference was the issue of payment.
Though many of Mr Groom’s activities were unpaid, he was entitled to submit monthly claims for payment for others. The volunteer Code of Conduct stated that such payment was ‘to cover minor costs caused by your volunteering, and to compensate for any disruption to your personal life and employment and for unsocial hours call-outs’. Submitting claims was optional, and it was noted that some volunteers chose not to claim.
The EAT ruled that ‘the only proper construction of the documents is that a contract comes into existence when a [volunteer] attends an activity in respect of which there is a right to remuneration’. Mr Groom was therefore to be treated as a worker with regard to activities for which he was paid.
The decision doesn’t mean that every volunteer is to be classed as a worker. Even with regard to Mr Groom, the question of whether worker status applied for unpaid activities was left to be decided at another time. Nevertheless, anyone using volunteers – or offering work experience or internships – will want to be sure they don’t run the risk of their arrangements being classified as conferring worker or employee status. The Court of Appeal’s verdict will be important to watch.
